I started to write this and then it disappeared. I was online at the time so
it may arrive in two different versions. Ifso, apologies.
I still object to "adhered" - the visual components are "in" the text unless
they're illustrative.
The problem here may be in the term "text". There's text as plain text and
text as everything that's textual.
If one views the book as being a container and illustrative medium for the
plain text, then one could speak of visual components adhered with
considerable justification. However, if one looks to the book as being part
of the text, then the intention is to produce an integrated object - a
compound rather than a mixture I seem to recall from my days 40 years ago in
the chem lab
Limitations will be skill and resources but that is different to intention
The organisation of the text in this context would include syntactical,
layout, formatting, materials etc
Of course there are problems with access and distribution, and that has been
raised; but that seems to me a claim to privilege on the part of mass
production and consumption, an enslaving tyranny masquerading as a
liberating democratising process and finding many gullible believers, the
fastest growing religion
L
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Clark" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Lawrence Upton" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 16 April 2000 22:32
Subject: Re: ideoxody / accepted opinions
| I was talking about felicities in the organisation of the text rather
| than visual components adhered to it.
|
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|